Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Ceillac en Queyras is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 82/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Valdesqui is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Recommended

Ceillac en Queyras

62/100

Why

Ceillac en Queyras is the strongest match because of solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 82/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Valdesqui is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 2 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 23 h ago

Structural fit score: 62/100.

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeValdesqui

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Ceillac en Queyras

Family progression baseLow-regret choice

Leads on solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, strong reliability match · 82/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence.

Why Ceillac en Queyras leads Valdesqui Snow reliability +6.3 pts and Terrain fit +4.3 pts

Snow reliability +6.3Terrain fit +4.3Snow now -0.5

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeValdesqui

Main uncertaintySome requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultIncrease lift system weight from 14 to 38 and Valdesqui becomes the leading option.

Lead margin10.2pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.

Evidence confidence55%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Explore decision boundaries · what preference change flips the winner?

These are the smallest tested single-dimension changes that produce a different leader. Apply one to inspect that scenario; no new database query is required to calculate the boundary.

Lift systemValdesqui

Increase lift system weight from 14 to 38 and Valdesqui becomes the leading option.

14 → 38

Why Ceillac en Queyras leads Valdesqui · 10.2 pts

Terrain+6.4 pts

Snow+6.3 pts

Lift system-6.0 pts

Scale+2.5 pts

Family & value+1.4 pts

Current opportunity-0.5 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Ceillac en Queyras

#1 · Ceillac en Queyras · France

Decision62/100

Fit62/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability8282/100Terrain5454/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit61.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision61.5/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow82/100 · 37% evidence 22.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain59/100 · 44% evidence 14.8 / 25.0 pts

Scale61/100 · 100% evidence 11.1 / 18.2 pts

Lift system15/100 · 68% evidence 2.4 / 15.9 pts

Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 10.8 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useSnow-first trips · 68/100Snow reliabilityExceptionalSki area25 km · 850 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Strong reliability match · 82/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Valdesqui

#2 · Valdesqui · Spain

Decision51/100

Fit55/100

Now6/100

Quality4.8/10

Now626 cm upperReliability6464/100Terrain5252/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit55.292% weight Now5.78% weight Decision51.3/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow64/100 · 37% evidence 17.5 / 27.3 pts

Terrain37/100 · 52% evidence 9.1 / 25.0 pts

Scale51/100 · 100% evidence 9.3 / 18.2 pts

Lift system57/100 · 68% evidence 9.1 / 15.9 pts

Family & value75/100 · 41% evidence 10.2 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow26 cm 5.7 / 65.2 pts

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeFamily-led destinationBest useFamily trips · 62/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area22 km · 418 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m

Strengths

Mixed terrain match · 52/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Good reliability match · 64/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

Structural snow resilience uses the multi-winter early/core/late archive after daily de-duplication. Calendar-date rows separately compare current observations with the previous five years. Missing archive evidence remains unknown.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	Ceillac en QueyrasCeillac en Queyras	ValdesquiValdesqui
Assessment
Decision score	62/100clear advantage	51/100
Structural Fit	62/100clear advantage	55/100
Current opportunity	0/100	6/100clear advantage
Overall quality	–	4.8/10
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	83/100clear advantage	47/100
Typical daytime high	0°Cclear advantage	6°C
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–
Typical overnight low	-7°Cclear advantage	1°C
Rating	5.8/10clear advantage	4.8/10
Area size class	20–50 km	20–50 km
Ability profile	advanced	novice
Price class	–	avg
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	25 km	22 km
Lowest point	1,650 m	1,860 mclear advantage
Highest point	2,500 mclear advantage	2,278 m
Vertical range	850 mclear advantage	418 m
Blue pistes	48%	84%
Red pistes	48%	16%
Black pistes	4%	0%
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	76/100clear advantage	63/100
Slope-angle diversity	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	–
Historical context
Historical snow resilience	–	–
Typical early-winter mountain depth	–	–
Typical core-winter mountain depth	–	–
Typical late-winter mountain depth	–	–
Snow consistency	–	–
Late-winter retention	–	–
Lower-mountain retention	–	–
Warm-winter resilience	–	–
Mountain snow versus typical	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–
Mountain snow	–	26 cm
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm
Snow quality	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–
Open lifts	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	206 pph/km	497 pph/kmclear advantage
Lift-system coverage	0.21×	0.39×clear advantage
Terrain per lift	4.2 km/lift	1.7 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature	13°C	8°C
Maximum temperature	13°C	13°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	–	–
Piste variety	–	–
Off-piste	–	–
Cross-country	–	–
Lift network	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–
Après-ski	–	–
Public transport	–	–
Best airport transfer	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Ceillac en Queyras

Ceillac en Queyras

Resort overview

Ceillac en Queyras

Valdesqui

Detailed comparison